10 ms·

Patreon is not a government body. If you host a bake sale open to everyone in your house, you can and should kick out the screaming lunatics that keep making a

by ngold 9y ago

Patreon is not a government body. If you host a bake sale open to everyone in your house, you can and should kick out the screaming lunatics that keep making a mess. The screaming lunatics are free to host their own bake sale at their house.

Hydraulix989 9y ago
Even though it's not a governing body, consumers and content creators both might still value free speech in any kind of marketplace/middleman regardless. Government is a sufficient but not necessary condition for upholding free speech.
syshum 9y ago
>>Patreon is not a government body. Ok, and. Do you believe only governments are a threat to free speech? Free Speech is a concept that every person, every company, every government should work to up hold. While governments can and have been the source of censorship, that is not the only source. Today free speech is under massive assault not by Government but by Society at large, society it seems have lost all respect for the concept, instead of holding the position of "I disagree with what you say but I will fight for your right to say it" people instead hold the idea "I disagree with what you say so I will boycott companies that hire you, or allow you to speak, or do anything to even tangentially associate themselves with you" and increasingly people have the position of "I disagree with you so I will punch you in the face" This is very very scary and is direct assault on free speech.
- sean1rose 9y ago
  I think what he meant is that the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to private actors, which uhhh, is true.
- scottLobster 9y ago
  No it isn't, it's an exercise in property rights and a reminder that most of the "internet" as we know it, including this very board, is private property. Barring a legally binding contract or criminal activity, no one is under any obligation to protect the civil rights of those on their property. If I wanted to hold a "whites only" house party and turn away minorities at the door, I can do that. If I refuse to allow protesters to use my front lawn as a staging area, I can do that. If I own a website and someone says something I don't like, I can ban them. If someone doesn't like Patreon's policies then they are welcome to start Conservatreon. I think the scarier prospect is people thinking that property holders should be forced to act as law enforcement within their domains, and to make determinations about civil rights. Sure it may seem rosy for free speech, but you're opening the flood gates with that one. Free speech simply says that you can't be arrested for speaking. It doesn't say people have to listen, and forcing people to listen is only going to worsen the situation you describe.
  - fvdessen 9y ago
    Can an American business serve "whites only" ? Are you advocating that American businesses should have the right to restrict service based on skin color ?
    - scottLobster 9y ago
      No and no, I'm not advocating anything of the sort. My point is simply that property holders, at least in America, are under no obligation to enforce rights. They are under obligation to not commit crimes, and as a nation we've decided that a business refusing service on the basis of skin color is a crime. Refusing to rebroadcast or support the opinions of someone you don't like is at present not a crime, and I sincerely hope it stays that way. Because otherwise you have to apply the same logic to other rights. And that sort of extremism leads to some crazy outcomes. For example, in the US the 2nd amendment is, under the law, of equal importance as the 1st. So should I, as a gun owner, demand that I should be allowed to carry my firearm anywhere, on anyone's property; and claim that for them to deny me that right is a violation of my 2nd amendment rights? I'm pro-gun and even to me that sounds crazy, as it would to many pro-gunners who are usually big on personal property rights. There's a reason Full30.com exists. Or how about the right to freedom of assembly (also part of the first amendment)? Should I be forced to allow protesters to use my property, as disallowing them violates their first amendment rights?
      - FireBeyond 9y ago
        > So should I, as a gun owner, demand that I should be allowed to carry my firearm anywhere, on anyone's property; and claim that for them to deny me that right is a violation of my 2nd amendment rights? I'm pro-gun and even to me that sounds crazy, as it would to many pro-gunners who are usually big on personal property rights. There are many, many gun owners who argue exactly that. That "gun free zones" are anti-Constitutional, be those zones publicly owned, or privately owned. This shouldn't be news to you.
        scottLobster 9y ago
- s73ver 9y ago
  Maybe Free Speech wouldn't be under such an assault if people weren't saying that you have to allow everything, including harassment and doxxing, to not be "assaulting free speech". Not to mention that doxxing and harassment are not free speech in the first place.
  - Banthum 9y ago
    The issue is that those rules are enforced energetically and stringently against dissidents, but are often not enforced or enforced in a lax way for orthodox activists. E.g. Anita Sarkeesian publicly calling one of her online political opponents a shithead and garbage human from the stage at a conference. He was sitting in the audience quietly. Result: he (not she) gets barred from returning on the grounds that his presence was somehow threatening, while her open vicious insults are passed over. E.g. Zoe Quinn's crash override network had a chat log leaked where they were organizing harassment and doxing. No consequence. Double standards everywhere. This is why they like super vague terms like harassment and hate speech. If the term has huge flexibility, the people with power have huge arbitrary power to apply it.
    - s73ver 9y ago
      I'm sorry, but your examples are quite out of context. Read the story about Sarkeesian's thing. Those people were there specifically for harassment. I cannot be upset at her for calling him out, and I cannot be upset that he was banned. As for the other one, you're gonna have to provide proof.
      - syshum 9y ago
        >> Read the story about Sarkeesian's thing. Those people were there specifically for harassment. Maybe you need to read unbiased news because they were not, nor did they do anything that could even remotely considered harassment. Attending a talk of your political opposite is not harassment Though I do think they went WAY over board on the reaction to being called "Garbage Human" but I understand why as they are correct if the roles where reversed the SJW reaction would have been FAR FAR more dramatic... >>and I cannot be upset that he was banned. He was banned? From where?
- door 9y ago
  no one is saying you can't say things, they are just saying you can't say things in certain places. there have ALWAYS been regulations, both legal and market, on what you can say on tv, radio, in newspapers. 50 years ago you could write your pro-nazi holocaust denying op ed but it isnt a violation of free speech when the new york times refused to publish it. now we have large mainstream internet communities like reddit that also put justifiable limits on what can be said. no one is saying you cant start a racist irc channel or bbs board, they are saying that horrible things shouldn't be said on a massive platform that millions of people see
  - syshum 9y ago
    > 50 years ago you could write your pro-nazi holocaust denying op ed but it isnt a violation of free speech when the new york times refused to publish it. The New York times also never publicly advertised themselves as a "Free Speech Platform" that was "open to all persons and views" >they are saying that horrible things shouldn't be said on a massive platform that millions of people see Well one, it is clear you yourself are not a supporter of Freedom of Speech. Two, so do you believe that a massive platform with millions of people should be forced to sensor speech you find to be "horrible" One of the things I always question when people start classify speech as "horrible" is who subjective it is. For example I think it is "horrible" that the christian region is given prominent placement in society. I believe the views of the Christian Region to be "horrible" and I consider indoctrinating children into said religion to be abuse. Would you support a massive platform banning all references to Christianity? And if they did would support them calling themselves "Supporters of Free Speech" while doing so? //and before the Christians get all butt hurt, I oppose any and all organized religions, I think they are all bullshit. Christianity however is the most popular religion in America so I use it to highlight my point
    - door 9y ago
      if you think that calling racism or nazism horrible is "subjective" then you clearly have no solid principles and this conversation is over i think you're wrong about christianity, and we can debate whether or not advocacy of it should be allowed on a public platform. i think comparing it to nazism, targeted harassment, child porn/revenge porn, and hate speech (really the only things banned on reddit for example) is delusional
- groby_b 9y ago
  Mostly, society at large has - finally! - lost all respect for the screeching lunatics who try to incite violence and destroy democracy, and we're starting to kick them out of places. I'm all in favor of that.
  - syshum 9y ago
    Antifa seems to have alot of support, they are inciting violence.... Do you support them?
endgame 9y ago
That argument gets increasingly flimsy when all public spaces that matter are owned by private corporations, both online and off. The quotes from Alexander Hamilton and J.S. Mill in the below link sums it up well, IMHO: http://sealedabstract.com/rants/re-xkcd-1357-free-speech/ http://sealedabstract.com/rants/re-xkcd-1357-free-speech/
ithought 9y ago
The 1st Amendment is only an acknowledgment that the government can't infringe on a natural right that pre-existed. If a company wants to proclaim an open platform but selectively enforce speech restrictions, then in a sense it is diminishing natural rights. If it's an online platform dedicated to bake sales, then it's fine to limit it to that. But things like Youtube aren't -- they are a dominant platform and it's at least immoral or an affront to Enlightenment ideals to selectively limit from speech they disagree with based on political views.
- door 9y ago
  thats the nature of the free market - if you don't like patreon, start your own more nazi-friendly site and see how it goes (hint: poorly). the state is unique in that it has a monopoly on regulating speech - a state should have very very little power in regulating what can be said, because you can't avoid the state. you can always find an internet community that will allow you to say something truly vile.
brandonhsiao 9y ago
That's technically true, but the Patreon CEO has claimed that they're committed to free speech, which is false if they're going to kick out screaming lunatics who are protected under the definition of free speech. If so they shouldn't get credit for it.
- btym 9y ago
  There is no single definition of free speech. Even the relatively permissive American definition of free speech has exceptions for hate and violence.
  - brandonhsiao 9y ago
    When an American company says they support free speech, everyone assumes they mean the American version. Which, incidentally, does not include exceptions for "hate speech": https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/19/supreme-court-unanimously-reaffirms-there-is-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
  - didgeoridoo 9y ago
    Where did you get that daft idea?
hu55 9y ago
But Twitter has stayed relevant by allowing a screaming lunatic become President. In multiple countries. The platforms don't know what the fuck they are doing imho.

by ngold 9y ago

Hydraulix989 9y ago

Even though it's not a governing body, consumers and content creators both might still value free speech in any kind of marketplace/middleman regardless. Government is a sufficient but not necessary condition for upholding free speech.

syshum 9y ago

>>Patreon is not a government body. Ok, and. Do you believe only governments are a threat to free speech? Free Speech is a concept that every person, every company, every government should work to up hold. While governments can and have been the source of censorship, that is not the only source. Today free speech is under massive assault not by Government but by Society at large, society it seems have lost all respect for the concept, instead of holding the position of "I disagree with what you say but I will fight for your right to say it" people instead hold the idea "I disagree with what you say so I will boycott companies that hire you, or allow you to speak, or do anything to even tangentially associate themselves with you" and increasingly people have the position of "I disagree with you so I will punch you in the face" This is very very scary and is direct assault on free speech.

sean1rose 9y ago
I think what he meant is that the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to private actors, which uhhh, is true.
scottLobster 9y ago
No it isn't, it's an exercise in property rights and a reminder that most of the "internet" as we know it, including this very board, is private property. Barring a legally binding contract or criminal activity, no one is under any obligation to protect the civil rights of those on their property. If I wanted to hold a "whites only" house party and turn away minorities at the door, I can do that. If I refuse to allow protesters to use my front lawn as a staging area, I can do that. If I own a website and someone says something I don't like, I can ban them. If someone doesn't like Patreon's policies then they are welcome to start Conservatreon. I think the scarier prospect is people thinking that property holders should be forced to act as law enforcement within their domains, and to make determinations about civil rights. Sure it may seem rosy for free speech, but you're opening the flood gates with that one. Free speech simply says that you can't be arrested for speaking. It doesn't say people have to listen, and forcing people to listen is only going to worsen the situation you describe.
- fvdessen 9y ago
  Can an American business serve "whites only" ? Are you advocating that American businesses should have the right to restrict service based on skin color ?
  - scottLobster 9y ago
    No and no, I'm not advocating anything of the sort. My point is simply that property holders, at least in America, are under no obligation to enforce rights. They are under obligation to not commit crimes, and as a nation we've decided that a business refusing service on the basis of skin color is a crime. Refusing to rebroadcast or support the opinions of someone you don't like is at present not a crime, and I sincerely hope it stays that way. Because otherwise you have to apply the same logic to other rights. And that sort of extremism leads to some crazy outcomes. For example, in the US the 2nd amendment is, under the law, of equal importance as the 1st. So should I, as a gun owner, demand that I should be allowed to carry my firearm anywhere, on anyone's property; and claim that for them to deny me that right is a violation of my 2nd amendment rights? I'm pro-gun and even to me that sounds crazy, as it would to many pro-gunners who are usually big on personal property rights. There's a reason Full30.com exists. Or how about the right to freedom of assembly (also part of the first amendment)? Should I be forced to allow protesters to use my property, as disallowing them violates their first amendment rights?
    - FireBeyond 9y ago
      > So should I, as a gun owner, demand that I should be allowed to carry my firearm anywhere, on anyone's property; and claim that for them to deny me that right is a violation of my 2nd amendment rights? I'm pro-gun and even to me that sounds crazy, as it would to many pro-gunners who are usually big on personal property rights. There are many, many gun owners who argue exactly that. That "gun free zones" are anti-Constitutional, be those zones publicly owned, or privately owned. This shouldn't be news to you.
      - scottLobster 9y ago
s73ver 9y ago
Maybe Free Speech wouldn't be under such an assault if people weren't saying that you have to allow everything, including harassment and doxxing, to not be "assaulting free speech". Not to mention that doxxing and harassment are not free speech in the first place.
- Banthum 9y ago
  The issue is that those rules are enforced energetically and stringently against dissidents, but are often not enforced or enforced in a lax way for orthodox activists. E.g. Anita Sarkeesian publicly calling one of her online political opponents a shithead and garbage human from the stage at a conference. He was sitting in the audience quietly. Result: he (not she) gets barred from returning on the grounds that his presence was somehow threatening, while her open vicious insults are passed over. E.g. Zoe Quinn's crash override network had a chat log leaked where they were organizing harassment and doxing. No consequence. Double standards everywhere. This is why they like super vague terms like harassment and hate speech. If the term has huge flexibility, the people with power have huge arbitrary power to apply it.
  - s73ver 9y ago
    I'm sorry, but your examples are quite out of context. Read the story about Sarkeesian's thing. Those people were there specifically for harassment. I cannot be upset at her for calling him out, and I cannot be upset that he was banned. As for the other one, you're gonna have to provide proof.
    - syshum 9y ago
      >> Read the story about Sarkeesian's thing. Those people were there specifically for harassment. Maybe you need to read unbiased news because they were not, nor did they do anything that could even remotely considered harassment. Attending a talk of your political opposite is not harassment Though I do think they went WAY over board on the reaction to being called "Garbage Human" but I understand why as they are correct if the roles where reversed the SJW reaction would have been FAR FAR more dramatic... >>and I cannot be upset that he was banned. He was banned? From where?
door 9y ago
no one is saying you can't say things, they are just saying you can't say things in certain places. there have ALWAYS been regulations, both legal and market, on what you can say on tv, radio, in newspapers. 50 years ago you could write your pro-nazi holocaust denying op ed but it isnt a violation of free speech when the new york times refused to publish it. now we have large mainstream internet communities like reddit that also put justifiable limits on what can be said. no one is saying you cant start a racist irc channel or bbs board, they are saying that horrible things shouldn't be said on a massive platform that millions of people see
- syshum 9y ago
  > 50 years ago you could write your pro-nazi holocaust denying op ed but it isnt a violation of free speech when the new york times refused to publish it. The New York times also never publicly advertised themselves as a "Free Speech Platform" that was "open to all persons and views" >they are saying that horrible things shouldn't be said on a massive platform that millions of people see Well one, it is clear you yourself are not a supporter of Freedom of Speech. Two, so do you believe that a massive platform with millions of people should be forced to sensor speech you find to be "horrible" One of the things I always question when people start classify speech as "horrible" is who subjective it is. For example I think it is "horrible" that the christian region is given prominent placement in society. I believe the views of the Christian Region to be "horrible" and I consider indoctrinating children into said religion to be abuse. Would you support a massive platform banning all references to Christianity? And if they did would support them calling themselves "Supporters of Free Speech" while doing so? //and before the Christians get all butt hurt, I oppose any and all organized religions, I think they are all bullshit. Christianity however is the most popular religion in America so I use it to highlight my point
  - door 9y ago
    if you think that calling racism or nazism horrible is "subjective" then you clearly have no solid principles and this conversation is over i think you're wrong about christianity, and we can debate whether or not advocacy of it should be allowed on a public platform. i think comparing it to nazism, targeted harassment, child porn/revenge porn, and hate speech (really the only things banned on reddit for example) is delusional
groby_b 9y ago
Mostly, society at large has - finally! - lost all respect for the screeching lunatics who try to incite violence and destroy democracy, and we're starting to kick them out of places. I'm all in favor of that.
- syshum 9y ago
  Antifa seems to have alot of support, they are inciting violence.... Do you support them?

endgame 9y ago

That argument gets increasingly flimsy when all public spaces that matter are owned by private corporations, both online and off. The quotes from Alexander Hamilton and J.S. Mill in the below link sums it up well, IMHO: http://sealedabstract.com/rants/re-xkcd-1357-free-speech/ http://sealedabstract.com/rants/re-xkcd-1357-free-speech/

ithought 9y ago

The 1st Amendment is only an acknowledgment that the government can't infringe on a natural right that pre-existed. If a company wants to proclaim an open platform but selectively enforce speech restrictions, then in a sense it is diminishing natural rights. If it's an online platform dedicated to bake sales, then it's fine to limit it to that. But things like Youtube aren't -- they are a dominant platform and it's at least immoral or an affront to Enlightenment ideals to selectively limit from speech they disagree with based on political views.

door 9y ago
thats the nature of the free market - if you don't like patreon, start your own more nazi-friendly site and see how it goes (hint: poorly). the state is unique in that it has a monopoly on regulating speech - a state should have very very little power in regulating what can be said, because you can't avoid the state. you can always find an internet community that will allow you to say something truly vile.

brandonhsiao 9y ago

That's technically true, but the Patreon CEO has claimed that they're committed to free speech, which is false if they're going to kick out screaming lunatics who are protected under the definition of free speech. If so they shouldn't get credit for it.

btym 9y ago
There is no single definition of free speech. Even the relatively permissive American definition of free speech has exceptions for hate and violence.
- brandonhsiao 9y ago
  When an American company says they support free speech, everyone assumes they mean the American version. Which, incidentally, does not include exceptions for "hate speech": https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/19/supreme-court-unanimously-reaffirms-there-is-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
- didgeoridoo 9y ago
  Where did you get that daft idea?

hu55 9y ago

But Twitter has stayed relevant by allowing a screaming lunatic become President. In multiple countries. The platforms don't know what the fuck they are doing imho.